Thesis: A good historian does not
adopt a thesis until quite late on in the process of preparing
a paper. First, find good questions to ask yourself, questions that deserve
and actually call for an answer, real world questions even if the paper
is about a remote period of the past. Only at the almost-final stage of
preparation will you know at last more or less exactly what you want to
argue, what your line of argument (thesis if you will) is to be. You can
then make sure that we readers know too, by signalling to us both questions
and thesis in the introduction.

In the body of the paper, argue your case for your answers to the questions
you have set youself. Do not write a simple narrative, or
just tell a story, or try to include everything (no matter how little)
you know about a subject.

Of course, in making your argument, you will need to give examples that
support the thesis, and these examples may well include narrative. But
you should try to persuade the reader of the validity of your argument.
So aim to write an analytical paper in which you discuss the thesis, and
then draw a conclusion for the preceding debate. By the end the reader
should be able to state your point of view clearly, and to summarize the
evidence of which you base that argument.

Take a position; don't waffle. Say what you think, and why. In history,
although certain facts are indisputable, there are few "right"
or "wrong" answers; usually it is a matter of a "good",
i.e. persuasive, argument, or a "bad" one, i.e. an unpersuasive,
poorly planned one.

Bibliography: A research paper requires
research, i.e. finding the relevant primary sources, secondary literature,
etc, and evaluating all this material. Skim through the secondary sources
and see what general lines of argument develop that relate to your topic.

Question:-Are you sure you understand the difference between "primary"
and "secondary" materials, and why they matter? If not, ask!
and see below.

Use your professor (and/or the nice, friendly T. A.)
as a resource.

Consult one of them for broad suggestions on manageability of the topic,
which directions might be most promising, etc.

Ask for pointers on bibliography.

Come to Office Hours ahead of deadlines!

Outline: After you have done your
research, plan in advance what line of argument you will take. Depending
on the complexity of your subject and on your own study habits, the outline
may be anything from a broad general guide to a very detailed plan. The
outline should enable you to check easily on the development of the argument,
and to re-order it in the most effective, logical order.

An outline will also help you gauge your time. Start working on the
paper well in advance of the due date. It is highly recommended that you
meet the specified due date. Notify your instructor as soon as possible
if it seems that, for some legitimate reason, you may need an extension.
A paper simply turned in late, without prior negotiation, will usually
draw a penalty

You may need to go through multiple plans before writing the paper,
to clarify your questions and their ordering (crucial) and to gradually
sort out the argument with which you bring together the different questions
you have set yourself. .

Title: Choose a title which suggests
a question or debate you will address. Print it at the top of the first
page, and on the cover sheet. Bear it in mind while you are writing the
paper. Don't let yourself stray from the subject as you have framed it.
Subtle suggestion: If you have something nifty you badly want to include,
you should arrange the initial presentation (title and introduction) to
make it relevant -- Right from the start.

Introduction: Start strongly. This
is where you manage (or fail) to capture interest and thereby improve your
grade. Usually the first paragraph should introduce the argument. Sometimes
a short opening paragraph is also needed to set the historical context.

Argument: Marshall evidence to support
your thesis. This does not mean that you simply pile up facts. If others
take different lines of argument on your topic, indicate why you agree
or disagree with them.

Conclusion: Finish with a bang not
a whimper. Summarize the debate neatly in a paragraph or two. Save a point
of interest to end on -- a comment on the significance of the subject,
what is original about your argument, etc. The conclusion should reinforce,
in the reader's mind, the persuasiveness of your whole argument.

Style: Write in clear, concise English.
Use the least number of words possible to make your point.

Always write in the past tense: this is, after all, history. The events
have occurred already and should be treated as such. Do not use colloquial
or abbreviated English.

Complex points of debate or material which is necessary for background
but somewhat tangential to your thesis can often be treated in footnotes,
so as not to interfere with your main argument.

Short sentences are often easier to control. This helps you to make
your points clearly and forcefully. Frequent paragraph divisions may also
help to maintain interest and to separate thoughts from each other. How
you handle sentence and paragraph divisions is naturally a matter of taste.
But keeping things short will usually at least ensure that your points
come over clearly, your first responsibility. You can go after elegance
at a later stage.

A couple of minor points for medieval history papers.

We know many medieval figures by toponymic names, that
is, after some place with which they are associated. John of Salisbury
and William of Baskerville are two English examples. When you refer to
them in the text, do it by the first name: "John writes very
clearly ..." Do not say "Salisbury was very clever."

Never give Domesday Book or Magna Carta a definite article.
"The" Domesday Book and "the Magna Carta" are wrong.
But you can say "the Great Charter"! Do not ask me why! It is
just the style, and anything else sounds wrong. One day, knowing the right
style will win you brownie points at some toney gathering, or assist your
entry to writers' heaven.

Paragraphs: Each paragraph should
contain one major point with advances your argument. Use about 3 or 4 paragraphs
to a page. Don't write the paper as a "stream of consciousness"
with the stages of the argument undifferentiated.

Quotations: Keep all quotes short:
I am more interested in what you have to say than in anyone
else's words. All quotes must fit smoothly into the text. Any quotation
longer than 3 lines should be indented and single-spaced. Acknowledge the
source of all direct quotations in a footnote -- author, work, page etc.

Annotation: Use either footnotes
or endnotes, but not both! A first reference (even to a textbook) should
contain certain details.

For the correct format, see Footnote 1.[1] Abbreviate
subsequent references as in Footnote 2.[2] Use "Ibid."
only where the context is absolutely clear. If you need more than this
(which you do not, in my classes), check out one of the standard guides
for the M.L.A. Rules or the Chicago Style.

It does not (in my opinion) matter much which set of conventions you
use; it matters a good deal that you follow your chosen set carefully and
stay consistent. Try and ensure that you spell the authors and titles correctly.
Copying errors of this kind scream out the message that you are so slapdash
that sensible people do not need to listen carefully to what you say!

For citations of material on the Web: Give
the full URL,

eg <falcon.arts.cornell.edu/~prh3/disclaimer.html>.

But always date your citation. Websites are much less stable than publicly
printed books and articles. They change as their "authors" develop
them. Sometimes they disappear. (The Falcon server through whose good graces
you read this crashed over the summer, and was not backed up! so the same
URL someone keyed in last Spring may bring him the same now, or something
very different, or nothing at all where I have yet to replace the files!
"Falcon" is after all just one more box under a desk in a campus
office.) Always consider too how far and why you should trust the information
offered, just as you would a book or a con artist. See further below under
"Source Criticism".

Why bother
with citations anyway? Good question.
In my former life, I never expected students to provide footnotes and bibliographies.
In North America they are, however, required, and we too must follow local
rules. One quite common rationale says that you cite sources to establish
that your work is your own, that you are not plagiarizing. I do not myself
see the force of that. I know from experience (other people's!) that one
can easily use the system to cheat. Ask me, and I just might teach you
some of the tricks! No, technicalities do not keep people honest. But anyway,
we are not like that, are we? Please cite your sources for more positive
reasons. I cite mine so that a reader can if he or she chooses follow my
footsteps and check my argument. Footnotes trace a kind of paper trail
for future hunters to follow. Hopefully those who follow will feel that
our work is solid enough for them to build on to it, for that is how knowledge
advances.

Revisions: Once you have written
the paper, read it through again. And again.

Read it aloud! You may be surprised to discover that your ear catches
infelicities, such as simple grammatical errors, that "look"
fine on paper, and so escape your eyes. You will also be so pleased when
it sounds good, euphonious, persuasive, clear.

Get someone else to read it. Does it flow easily? Does it make sense?
Can they follow your argument?

Please, please proof your work carefully. Check your spelling. Remember
that Spell-Checker software will not tell you if you are usiong a word
correctly or in the right place, only that it exists in its dictionary.
Have both a Dictionary and a Thesaurus of your ownto
hand. If certain phrases are repeated often enough to seem boring, seek
out accurate synonyms in the Thesaurus.

Vary your sentence structure from the usual Subject-Verb-Object, to
make your paper more effective and to stimulate your reader's interest.
(Variations in sentence structure can effectively indicate the relative
importance of certain parts of your argument, too.)

Technical Desiderata: Provide a
cover sheet with the course number and title, as well as your name and
the date. Number the pages and staple them together. You are expected to
include an accurate bibliography in one of the accepted formats at the
end. (Accurate: It looks bad to mispell the title of a book you have used
all the time!)

Some Reading about Reading
(& Writing)

Everybody has his and her own favorites. My suggestions should not put
you off those of others.

Many students in my former life found that Tony Buzan, Use Your
Head (BBC Books: London, 1982) helped them to organize their notes
(ie thoughts) on the sources they read.

No work on Source Criticism (see below) matches Mary McCarthy's autobiographical
Memories of a Catholic Girlhood (New York 1946) for enjoyment.

If you are really serious about improving your ability to write persuasively,
The Broadview Book of Common Errors in English, ed. Don Le
Pan (Peterborough, Ont., 1988) is much more helpful than the usual books.

Source criticism ("Quellenkritik"
in German) is a forbidding title for old skills that have gained a new
and greater importance with the arrival of the Web. I have frequently heard
impassioned discussion on TV in shows like "Sixty Minutes" and
especially on National Public Radio of whether and how one (read: the
U.S.) should regulate the Web. Many decent people are horrified at what
they consider to be the side-effects of the explosion of information on
the Web. They point to the vast amount of doubtful information which students
like you can reach quickly and insert into your papers all to easily. But
they tend to be rather less perturbed about the kind of data on medieval
history which enhance courses like mine. Their wories focus on unauthorised
statements about recent air crashes and conspiracy theories about current
political events and the like. Good liberals foam at the mouth when they
describe hate sites, putting out in writing and graphics obscene and obnoxious
pseudo-facts (read: Lies) about Child Pornography, the Holocaust,
the private lives of the rich and famous, and so on.

The counter argument in this country is of course the First Amendment.
But it is unnecessary to invoke the U.S. Constitution, which in any case
does not bind men and women outside this country. There is no conceivable
way to police the Web; the damn thing is far too big.

So we all have to beware. ("Caveat reticulator", as we say.)
If you find a site offering you the Brooklyn Bridge at a very cheap price,
do not send money! Statements made in pretty writing on the
Web are no more authoritative there than if mouthed off in front of the
Straight through a megaphone, or scrawled as graffiti on a wall. We accept
all information at our own risk. Even when it comes routed
through our professor or the President of the United States. This must
not mean absolute scepticism in which we reject everything we do not like.
It should mean proper scrutiny of all witnesses. Those old rules of Evidence
and Source Criticism like the ones I set out below are the bare bones
of a critical procedure to check out incoming data. It is up to each of
us to take personal responsibility for what we write and utter. That is
to me much more important in the medium to long term than originality and
the real reason for citing sources in the approved manner.

This is pretty important stuff then. It is also much harder work than
simply sweeping any material that looks usable into your skirts and then
pouring the catch out into your paper. Like the defense of liberty, source
criticism takes unceasing vigilance and a great deal of effort. Actually
the two are very nearly the same thing. These skills are an important tool
for the defense of liberty. Give them your best shot.

1. Is your evidence a primary source or secondary source?

2. What are the author's sources? That is, what does he/she
know, and how does he/she know it? If a primary source, was he/she an eyewitness?

3. Does your author acknowledge his/her sources?

4. Is the chronology accurate?

5. Is there evidence of bias in your author?

6. What assumptions does he/she make about the subject?

7. On what premises does he/she base the argument? Are
they logical and consistent?

8. Is the information in your source corroborated elsewhere?
Can you check the facts easily?

9. Why is your author writing -- ie, to inform, to persuade,
to make an apologia?

1. Paul R. Hyams, King Lords and Peasants in Medieval England: The
Common Law of Villeinage in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Clarendon
Press: Oxford, 1980); Idem, "The Strange Story of Thomas of Elderfield",
History Today (1986), 9-15.